Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Affordable Homes
MARCH 2018
A Shortage of
Affordable Homes
MARCH 2018
ABOUT NLIHC
Rachael Myers, Seattle, WA
Marla Newman, Winston-Salem, NC
The National Low Income Housing Coalition is dedicated Ann O’Hara, Boston, MA
Bob Palmer, Chicago, IL
solely to achieving socially just public policy that assures
Eric Price, Washington, DC
people with the lowest incomes in the United States have Tara Rollins, Salt Lake City, UT
affordable and decent homes. Nan Roman, Washington, DC
Shauna Sorrells, Kensington, MD
Founded in 1974 by Cushing N. Dolbeare, NLIHC educates, Michael Steele, New York, NY
organizes and advocates to ensure decent, affordable housing Martha Weatherspoon, Clarksville, TN
for everyone.
INTRODUCTION
1 Throughout this report, we use renters and renter households interchangeably to refer to renter households.
41.0 + 5.0 =
46.0 units
35.3 + 5.7 =
Affordable
12.5
41.0 units
Affordable
4.5
16.2 + 19.1 =
35.3 units Affordable
9.0
Affordable
6.6
7.5 + 8.7 =
16.2 units
Affordable
11.2
7.5 units
Cumulative Units (By Affordability Category) Households (By Income Category)
available rental homes when the income threshold is homes existed at 80% and 100% of AMI in 2007.
raised from 50% to 80% of AMI. Figure 2 shows that Since then, the supply of affordable and available
a shortage of affordable and available rental homes rental homes (relative to demand) has declined even
for households with incomes over 50% of AMI is at these higher income levels. Renter households
due to the shortage of affordable and available rental at 100% of AMI, however, still enjoy a surplus
homes for those with incomes below 50% of AMI. nationally and in most markets.
Thirty-five affordable and available rental homes exist
for every 100 extremely low income renter households COST BURDENS
and 56 exist for every 100 renter households earning
at or below 50% of AMI (Figure 3). Ninety-three and A household is considered cost-burdened when it
101 affordable and available rental homes exist for spends more than 30% of its income on rent and
every 100 renter households earning at or below 80% utilities, and severely cost-burdened when it spends
of AMI or 100% of AMI, respectively. more than 50%. Cost burdens directly result from
the shortage of affordable and available rental homes
The severe shortage of rental homes affordable and
and low incomes.
available to the lowest income households predates
the Great Recession, but has worsened in recent Nearly 9.7 million extremely low income, 5 million
years. In 2007, 40 affordable and available rental very low income, 4.1 million low income, and 923,726
homes existed for every 100 extremely low renter middle income renter households are cost-burdened
households and 67 existed for every 100 renter (Figure 4). Eleven million renter households in the
households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI. United States are severely cost-burdened. Almost
A small surplus of affordable and available rental eight million, or nearly three-quarters, of them are
At Extremely
Low Income 35
At 50% AMI
56
At 80% AMI
93
At 100% AMI
101
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2016 ACS PUMS data.
AMI = Area Median Income
extremely low income. Extremely low income renter shortage of affordable housing and resulting cost
households are more likely to experience severe cost burdens contribute directly to housing instability
burdens than any other income group. and homelessness. Data from the 2013 American
Housing Survey (AHS) show that households in
Severe housing cost burdens can have negative
poverty with severe cost burdens are more likely
consequences for household members’ physical and
to fall behind on rent payments and be threatened
mental well-being. Poor households with children
with eviction than poor households with no cost
who are severely cost-burdened spend 75% less
burdens (Figure 5).
on healthcare and 40% less on food than similarly
poor households who are not cost-burdened; and Housing instability causes significant disruptions
poor seniors who are severely cost-burdened spend in critical services and economic stability. The lack
62% less on healthcare ( Joint Center for Housing of stable housing, for example, can disrupt the care
Studies, 2017). These households forego healthy given to chronically ill individuals or interrupt
food or delay healthcare or medications to pay the student learning and decrease academic achievement
rent. Meanwhile, financial hardships are associated (Maqbool, Viveiros, & Ault, 2015; Brennan, Reed,
with lower levels of psychological well-being & Sturtevant, 2014). Housing instability can
(Maqbool, Viveiros, & Ault, 2015). also undermine economic stability by disrupting
employment. Desmond & Gershenson (2016) found
Housing cost burdens also make it more difficult for
the likelihood of job loss increases for working renters
poor households to accumulate emergency savings.
who lose their home (primarily through eviction),
Without emergency savings, unexpected costs (e.g.
indicating that affordable housing and housing
car repairs, medical bills, etc.) or loss of income (e.g.
subsidies are foundational to employment and
reduced work hours) can cause households to fall
economic security.
behind on rent or even face eviction. In this way, the
5,042,294
4,078,157
2,106,973
8.6%
6.6%
3.1%
2.1% 1.7%
No Cost Burden Moderate Cost Burden Severe Cost Burden
Note: Households with no cost burden spend less than 30% of their income on housing costs. Households with moderate cost
burdens spend between 30% and 50% of their income on housing costs. Households with severe cost burdens spend more
than 50% of their income on housing.
Source: American Housing Survey, 2013.
EVERY STATE AND income households (Figure 6 and Appendix A). The
shortage of affordable and available rental homes ranges
LARGE METRO AREA from 10,781 in Wyoming to 1,083,466 in California.
The states where extremely low income renters face the
HAS A HOUSING greatest challenge in finding affordable and available
homes are Nevada, with only 15 affordable and available
SHORTAGE FOR rental homes for every 100 extremely low income
EXTREMELY LOW renter households, California (22/100), Delaware
(24/100), and Oregon (25/100). The states with the
INCOME RENTERS greatest supply of affordable and available rental homes
for extremely low income renters still have significant
THE STATES shortages. They are Maine with 59 affordable and
available homes for every 100 extremely low income
No state, including the District of Columbia, has an renter households, Alabama (58/100), West Virginia
adequate supply of rental housing for extremely low (58/100), and Mississippi (57/100).
WA
29 NH
VT 30 ME
MT ND 43 59
52 40
OR
25 ID MN
43 MA–46
43 SD WI NY
53 28 MI 35
WY RI–48
34 36
PA CT–36
IA
NE 42 38 NJ–30
NV 35 OH
15 IN 42 DE–24
UT IL
CO 41
CA 31 34 WV
VA
22 27 KS MO 58 MD–35
KY 36
45 42 55
NC
TN 46
AZ OK 45
26 NM 49 AR SC
43 49 45
GA
MS AL
38
57 58
LA
TX 44
30
AK FL
38 27
30 or Fewer
Between 31 and 40
HI
44 Between 41 and 45
Between 46 and 59
Note: Extremely low income (ELI) renter households have incomes at or below the poverty level of 30% of the area median income
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2016 ACS PUMS Data.
The majority of extremely low income renter for extremely low income households (Table 1 and
households are severely cost-burdened in every state Appendix B). Of the 50 largest metropolitan areas,
and the District of Columbia. The states with the extremely low income renters face the most severe
greatest percentage of extremely low income renter relative shortages in Las Vegas, NV with 10 affordable
households with a severe cost burden are Nevada and available rental homes for every 100 extremely low
(80%), Florida (79%), California (77%), Oregon income renter households, Los Angeles, CA (17/100),
(76%), Arizona (75%), and Colorado (75%). Orlando, FL (17/100), Sacramento, CA (19/100),
Dallas, TX (19/100), and Houston, TX (19/100).
The shortages of affordable and available rental
homes disappear for households higher up the Of the large metropolitan areas with the least severe
income ladder. Every state has a shortage of shortages of homes affordable and available to
affordable and available rental homes at the very low extremely low income renters, Providence, RI has 47
income threshold of 50% of AMI, 20 states have a for every 100 extremely low income renter households
shortage of housing at 80% of AMI, and just seven and Boston, MA and Louisville, KY have 46. The
states have a shortage at median income. majority of extremely low income renter households
are severely cost-burdened in all 50 of the largest
THE LARGEST 50 metropolitan areas, ranging from 59% of extremely
METROPOLITAN AREAS2 low income renter households in Providence, RI to
84% in Orlando, FL and Las Vegas, NV.
Every major metropolitan area in the U.S. has a
shortage of affordable and available rental homes Each of the 50 largest metropolitan areas also has
TABLE 1: LARGE METROPOLIAN AREAS WITH THE LEAST AND MOST SEVERE
SHORTAGES OF RENTAL HOMES AFFORDABLE TO EXTREMELY LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS
LEAST SEVERE MOST SEVERE
Affordable Affordable
and Available and Available
Metropolitan Area Rental Homes Metropolitan Area Rental Homes
per 100 Renter per 100 Renter
Households Households
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA 47 Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV 10
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 46 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 17
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 46 Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 17
Pittsburgh, PA 45 Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA 19
Oklahoma City, OK 42 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 19
Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY 41 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 19
Cleveland-Elyria, OH 41 San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 20
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 40 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 20
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 38 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 20
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 38 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 22
Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2016 ACS PUMS data.
2 This report focuses on the larges 50 metropolitan areas, but The Gap’s webpage includes data for 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 for the largest 70 metropolitan areas.
a shortage of affordable and available rental homes disabled, compared to 26% of other renter households
for households with incomes up to 50% of AMI. (Figure 7). Only 25% of extremely low income renter
The supply ranges from 23 affordable and available households are non-disabled non-seniors with no
rental homes for every 100 renter households in children, compared to 45% of other renter households.
Los Angeles, CA, Orlando, FL and San Diego, CA Households with special needs are more likely than
to 83 in Cincinnati, OH. Thirty-one of the largest other households to have extremely low incomes.
metropolitan areas have a shortage of affordable and Among renters, 46% of disabled householders without
available rental homes for households with incomes children, 44% of disabled householders with children,
up to 80% of AMI, and 12 of them have a shortage and 32% of senior households have extremely low
for households up to median income. incomes, compared to 26% of non-disabled non-senior
households with children and 16% of non-disabled
A CLOSER LOOK AT non-senior households without children (Figure 8).
6%
Note: Senior means householder or householder’s spouse is at least 62 years of age, regardless of children in the household.
Disabled means householder and householder’s spouse (if applicable) are younger than 62 and at least one of them has a
disability. Source: NLIHC tabulations of 2016 ACS PUMS data.
46% 44%
32%
26% 26%
16%
Note: *Households in millions. Senior means householder or householder’s spouse is at least 62 years of age. Disabled means
householder and householder’s spouse (if applicable) are younger than 62 and at least one of them has a disability. Source:
NLIHC tabulations of 2016 ACS PUMS data.
Other
9% 40+ hours / week 39%
Note: Mutually exclusive categories applied in the following order: senior, disabled, in labor force, enrolled in school,
single-adult caregiver, and other. Senior means householder or householder’s spouse (if applicable) is at least 62 years of age.
Disabled means householder and householder’s spouse (if applicable) are younger than 62 and at least one of them has a
disability. Unemployed means household and householder's spouse (if applicable) are younger than 62 and unemployed.
Working hours is usual number of hours worked by householder and householder's spouse (if applicable). Enrolled in school
means householder and householder's spouse (if applicable) are enrolled in school. Nearly 11% of severely cost burdened
extremely low income renters are single-adult caregivers of a young child or disabled person, three-quarters of whom are in the
labor force and three percent of whom are in school. Source: 2016 ACS PUMS.
2.3 full-time jobs) to afford a modest one-bedroom households or maintain the existing affordable stock.
apartment. The rents the lowest income households can afford
typically do not cover the costs of development
Extremely low income renter households with severe
and operating expenses, so new rental housing
cost burdens are disproportionately Hispanic and
development is largely geared toward the higher
black. Fifty-three percent of all renter households
end of the market. According to the Joint Center
are non-Hispanic white, 19% are non-Hispanic
for Housing Studies (2017), from 2005 to 2015, the
black, and 19% are Hispanic. However, 43% of
number of homes renting for $2,000 or more per
severely cost-burdened extremely low income
month increased by 97%, while the number renting
households are white, 26% are non-Hispanic black,
for less than $800 declined by 2%. The same report
and 22% are Hispanic. This inequity in severe cost-
notes that while the rental market added more than
burdens reflects the fact the Hispanic and black
6.7 million housing units during this period, the
households are more likely to be extremely low
number of units renting for less than $800 declined
income than white households.
by more than 260,000. In 2016, a four-person family
living in poverty could only afford a monthly rent of
FEDERAL POLICY $607.50 without being cost-burdened.
SOLUTIONS Because of the lack of affordable new construction
in the private market and insufficient rental
The severe shortage of affordable homes faced by assistance, the lowest income households rely on
the lowest income households is systemic. Absent housing that “filters” down as it becomes older and
public subsidy, the private market is largely unable more affordable. The filtering process, however, fails
to produce new rental housing affordable to these to produce a sufficient supply of affordable rental
FIGURE 10: CHANGES IN FUNDING LEVELS FOR KEY HUD PROGRAMS (FY10-FY17)
Changes (Millions) $1,225
-$190 -$87
-$423
-$860
-$1,095 -$951
-$1,927
Changes (%) 12.8%
-0.4%
-17.8%
-30.7%
-38.6%
-45.7%
-53.6% -56.6%
CDBG Public Housing Operating Fund Housing for the Elderly Tenant Based Rental Assistance
HOME Public Housing Capital Fund Housing for Persons with Disabilities Project-Based Rental Assistance
Note: Adjusted for inflation.
homes inexpensive enough for the lowest income and other harmful changes to scale back the federal
renters to afford. In strong markets, owners have an government’s role in ensuring that vulnerable families
economic incentive to redevelop their properties for – including the lowest income seniors, people with
higher income renters. In weak markets, owners have disabilities, families with children, low-wage workers,
an incentive to abandon their properties or convert and people experiencing homelessness – have access
them to other uses when rent revenues no longer to basic living standards, including an adequate and
cover basic operating costs and maintenance. In affordable home. These changes to housing assistance
short, when it comes to the lowest income renters, are misguided. As demonstrated by this report, the
public subsidies are needed either to subsidize the vast majority of extremely low income renters are
production and operation of affordable housing or seniors, persons with disabilities, or they are already
to provide rental assistance that low income families in the labor force. Of those working, their wages are
can utilize to afford market-rate units. insufficient to afford housing without assistance. No
data exist that show work requirements lift people
Federal funding for key HUD programs that
out of poverty (Levy, Edmonds, & Simington, 2018).
assist low income renters has not kept pace with
Time limits would further increase their vulnerability
the nation’s needs. The Budget Control Act of
to housing
2011 imposed severe caps on federal discretionary
insecurity.
spending that have since placed significant
Instead of cutting
downward pressure on funding for these programs. Federal
Adjusted for inflation, public housing received $1.8 investments in
housing assistance
billion less for capital and operating support in the affordable that would threaten
FY17 than in FY10, HOME received $1.1 billion housing the housing stability
less, housing for the elderly and disabled received programs at of vulnerable families,
$613 million less, and Housing Choice Vouchers HUD and the Congress and the
received $87 million less (Figure 10). In total, U.S. Department
Trump administration
funding for key HUD programs declined by 9.3% of Agriculture
from FY10 to FY17. (USDA) provide
should fully address
families and the affordable
Making matters worse, President Trump proposes
sweeping changes to further restrict and reduce critical communities housing needs of
federal investments that help extremely low income with the vulnerable families.
resources they
renters. The president has again proposed severe
need to thrive.
spending cuts for FY19. If enacted, the president’s
Access to affordable housing has wide ranging,
FY19 budget request would lead to the largest
positive impacts. When families have stable, decent,
reduction to affordable housing and community
and accessible homes that they can afford, they are
development investments in decades. By slashing
better able to maintain employment, perform better in
funding for HUD, Mr. Trump’s proposed FY19
school, and achieve improved health and well-being
budget would lead to more than 200,000 families
(Desmond & Gershenson, 2016; Maqbool, Viveiros,
losing vital federal rental assistance and to the
& Ault, 2015; Brennan, Reed, & Sturtevant, 2014).
elimination of programs that support state and local
efforts to address housing needs (NLIHC, 2018). Instead of cutting housing assistance that would
threaten the housing stability of vulnerable families,
Moreover, the president and Congress may
Congress and the Trump administration should fully
undertake administrative and legislative efforts to
address the affordable housing needs of vulnerable
impose work requirements, arbitrary time limits,
families.
While every state and congressional district is The national Housing Trust Fund (HTF)
impacted by the shortage of affordable homes for provides block grants to states for the creation or
extremely low income families, the specific housing rehabilitation of homes affordable to extremely low
challenges differ from community to community. income and very low income households. The HTF
Strong housing markets provide a different set of is funded through small mandatory contributions
challenges than weaker markets even though the from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government-
poorest renters cannot afford housing in either. sponsored enterprises or GSEs). Housing finance
NLIHC encourages policymakers to support a reform related to the GSEs offers an opportunity
comprehensive set of tools to solve this problem, to increase significantly resources for the HTF.
including capital investments and rental assistance. Previous reform proposals included $3.5 billion
annually for the national HTF, making a significant
Capital investments are needed to build, preserve
contribution to ending housing instability and
and rehabilitate homes affordable to the lowest
homelessness. This amount should be the starting
income people. These dollars can address other
point to build bi-partisan support for any future
challenges as well, like revitalizing distressed
legislation regarding reform.
communities, providing housing options for low
income families in tight or gentrifying markets, In addition to the HTF, a significant increase in
and producing accessible housing for persons with capital investment is needed for the rehabilitation
disabilities. and preservation of the nation’s public housing
infrastructure. This stock provides stable housing
THE PROBLEM:
The U.S. has a shortage of more than 7.2 MILLION rental homes
affordable and available to extremely low income renter households.
to some of the nation’s most vulnerable renters but and housing instability and improving adult and
faces a significant backlog of capital repair needs child well-being (Gubits et al., 2016). Policymakers
(Finkel et al. 2010; NLIHC, 2017b). should prioritize expanding housing vouchers, which
allow recipients to afford housing in the private
NLIHC also supports efforts to expand and improve
market. Voucher recipients contribute 30% of their
the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC).
income toward housing costs and the voucher pays
The recent tax bill’s reduction in the corporate tax
the remaining costs up to the local housing agency’s
rate may lower the value of tax credits, making
payment standard. Vouchers typically cost less than
it more difficult to generate equity for affordable
new production, making them a preferred form of
housing development. Congress should expand and
housing assistance in
make improvements to
weak markets with an
LIHTC to more deeply
target the housing needs
Our nation must make the abundance of vacant,
of extremely low income critical investments in physically adequate
renter households. These affordable housing needed housing. Additional
improvements include to help the economy, our local policies must
assist recipients with
a 50% basis boost in tax communities, families, and overcoming local barriers
children thrive.
credits for developments
to vouchers, including
that set aside at least
preventing housing
20% of their housing for
discrimination by
extremely low income renters; and income averaging,
landlords against voucher holders and reducing land
which would allow a development to use tax credits
use and building restrictions in strong markets that
to serve renters with incomes up to 80% of AMI, as
artificially limit the rental housing supply.
long as the average household income limit is 50%
or 60% of AMI. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) The lack of decent, accessible, and affordable
and Orin Hatch (R-UT) introduced a bill, “The housing, especially among people with the lowest
Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of incomes, is a significant barrier to housing and
2017” (S. 548), that includes these reforms and an economic stability and other societal benefits.
expansion of LIHTC by 50% over five years. Our nation must make the critical investments in
affordable housing needed to help the economy, our
Rental assistance like Housing Choice Vouchers
communities, families, and children thrive.
has a proven track record of reducing homelessness
ABOUT THE DATA plumbing facilities were not included in the housing
supply.
This report is based on data from the 2016 After households and units were categorized,
American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use we analyzed the extent to which households in
Microdata Sample (PUMS). The ACS is an annual each income category resided in housing units
nationwide survey of approximately 3.5 million categorized as affordable for that income level. For
addresses. It provides timely data on the social, example, we estimated the number units affordable
economic, demographic, and housing characteristics for extremely low income households that were
of the U.S. population. PUMS contains individual occupied by extremely low income households and
ACS questionnaire records for a subsample of by other income groups.
housing units and their occupants. We categorized households into mutually exclusive
PUMS data are available for geographic areas household types in the following order: (1)
called Public Use Microdata Sample Areas householder or householder’s spouse were at least
(PUMAs). Individual PUMS records were matched 62 years of age (seniors); (2) householder and
to their appropriate metropolitan area or given householder’s spouse (if applicable) were younger
nonmetropolitan status using the Missouri Data than 62 and at least one of them had a disability
Center’s MABLE/Geocorr14 online application. (disabled); (3) non-senior non-disabled household.
If at least 50% of a PUMA was in a Core Based We also categorized households into more detailed
Statistical Area (CBSA), we assigned it to mutually exclusive categories in the following
the CBSA. Otherwise, the PUMA was given order: (1) elderly; (2) disabled; (3) householder and
nonmetropolitan status. householder’s spouse (if applicable) were younger
than 62 and unemployed; (4) non-senior non-
Households were categorized (as extremely low disabled householder and/or householder’s spouse
income, very low income, low income, middle (if applicable) were working; (5) householder and
income, or above median income) by their incomes householder’s spouse (if applicable) were enrolled in
relative to their metropolitan area’s median family school; (6) non-senior non-disabled single adult was
income or state’s nonmetropolitan median family living with a young child under seven years of age or
income, adjusted for household size. Housing units person with disability.
were categorized according to the income needed to
afford the rent and utilities without spending more More information about the ACS PUMS files is
than 30% of income. The categorization of units was available at https://www.census.gov/programs-
done without regard to the incomes of the current surveys/acs/technical-documentation/pums/about.
tenants. Housing units without complete kitchen or html
REFERENCES
Brennan, M., Reed, P., & Sturtevant, L. (2014). The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
impacts of affordable housing on education: A research University. (2017). The state of the nation’s housing:
summary. Washington, DC: National Housing 2017. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Conference, Center for Housing Policy. Levy, D., Edmonds, L., & Simington, J. (2018).
Desmond, M. & Gershenson, C. (2016). Housing Work requirements in public housing authorities.
and employment instability among the working poor. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Social Problems, 63(1), 46-67. Maqbool, N., Viveiros, J., & Ault, M. (2015). The
Finkel, M., Lam, K., Blaine, C., de la Cruz, R.J., impacts of affordable housing on heath: A research
DeMarco, D., Vandawalker, M., & Woodford, M. summary. Washington, DC: National Housing
(2010). Capital needs in the public housing program. Conference, Center for Housing Policy.
Washington, DC: HUD. National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Fischer, W. (2016). Work requirements would undercut (2017a). Out of Reach 2017: The high cost of housing.
effectiveness of rental assistance programs. Washington, Washington, DC: Author.
DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2017b).
Gubits, D., Shinn, M., Wood, M., Bell, S., Public housing. Advocates’ Guide 2017. Washington,
Dastrup, S., Solari, C., … Kattel, U. (2016). Family DC: Author.
options study: 3-year impacts of housing and services National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2018).
interventions for homeless families. Washington, DC: President’s Budget Calls for Drastic Cuts to Affordable
HUD Office of Policy Development and Research. Housing. Washington, DC: Author.
HUD. (2017). The 2017 annual homeless assessment
report (AHAR) to Congress. Washington, DC: HUD
Office of Policy Development and Research.
Surplus (Deficit) of Affordable Affordable and Available Units per 100 % Within Each Income Category with
and Available Units Households at or below Threshold Severe Housing Cost Burden
At or below At or below At or At or below At or below At or below At or > ELI to 50% 51% to 80% 81% to 100%
State
ELI 50% AMI below ELI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI below ELI AMI AMI AMI
Alabama (80,411) (57,559) 58 79 110 112 67% 23% 3% 0%
Alaska (10,797) (10,445) 38 62 93 103 65% 30% 6% 0%
Arizona (159,599) (178,791) 26 46 95 104 75% 35% 8% 2%
Arkansas (59,445) (52,569) 49 69 104 107 65% 20% 4% 0%
California (1,083,466) (1,538,269) 22 31 67 85 77% 48% 18% 5%
Colorado (127,866) (159,456) 26 46 90 100 75% 39% 8% 2%
Connecticut (89,481) (81,312) 36 64 100 105 68% 27% 5% 1%
Delaware (20,400) (19,285) 24 55 102 109 73% 29% 8% 0%
District of Columbia (31,666) (23,214) 45 71 95 102 69% 24% 10% 1%
Florida (430,946) (605,744) 26 35 79 96 79% 54% 19% 5%
Georgia (220,925) (240,432) 38 55 100 105 73% 32% 6% 1%
Hawaii (20,512) (35,099) 44 44 71 90 65% 54% 30% 4%
Idaho (29,124) (25,771) 43 68 96 101 66% 20% 4% 1%
Illinois (309,287) (289,543) 34 62 98 103 72% 27% 5% 2%
Indiana (134,998) (83,636) 41 77 106 107 70% 17% 4% 1%
Iowa (57,991) (17,420) 42 90 106 106 66% 13% 3% 1%
Kansas (52,878) (29,484) 45 81 108 108 68% 17% 2% 1%
Kentucky (82,463) (67,068) 55 74 104 106 63% 18% 3% 1%
Louisiana (112,517) (122,516) 44 56 101 107 70% 32% 7% 3%
Maine (16,118) (17,904) 59 75 105 108 56% 17% 3% 0%
Maryland (123,621) (130,644) 35 57 100 105 74% 27% 6% 1%
Massachusetts (162,286) (172,007) 46 63 92 99 60% 31% 8% 2%
Michigan (212,329) (184,541) 36 65 100 103 71% 25% 4% 1%
Minnesota (92,439) (70,605) 43 75 99 103 62% 23% 2% 1%
Mississippi (48,152) (50,143) 57 67 103 108 66% 26% 5% 1%
Missouri (119,751) (67,129) 42 80 106 107 67% 15% 3% 2%
Montana (16,467) (10,857) 52 81 104 106 55% 17% 2% 1%
Nebraska (42,856) (22,860) 35 80 101 102 69% 15% 2% 1%
Nevada (81,787) (101,385) 15 37 94 108 80% 38% 10% 1%
New Hampshire (26,816) (22,656) 30 67 99 103 66% 20% 3% 0%
New Jersey (209,057) (289,452) 30 41 89 100 73% 40% 7% 2%
New Mexico (40,697) (43,201) 43 57 101 110 67% 33% 9% 1%
New York (615,392) (713,570) 35 52 83 95 71% 39% 11% 5%
North Carolina (190,025) (189,624) 46 66 103 108 70% 31% 4% 1%
North Dakota (16,089) (5,753) 40 88 114 113 70% 15% 2% 1%
Ohio (262,612) (166,780) 42 76 102 104 68% 20% 3% 1%
Oklahoma (68,733) (58,723) 49 73 106 107 65% 20% 3% 2%
Oregon (101,393) (135,693) 25 42 86 96 76% 33% 8% 3%
Pennsylvania (261,690) (229,702) 38 66 99 103 70% 25% 4% 2%
Rhode Island (27,917) (26,576) 48 69 99 103 60% 27% 4% 1%
South Carolina (90,859) (87,186) 45 64 100 105 71% 26% 5% 1%
South Dakota (13,722) (5,528) 53 89 107 106 68% 16% 2% 2%
Tennessee (133,581) (125,585) 45 65 101 105 68% 29% 4% 1%
Texas (613,185) (672,160) 30 52 98 106 72% 30% 6% 2%
Utah (41,842) (43,740) 32 60 100 105 67% 22% 5% 1%
Vermont (12,145) (12,497) 43 65 104 105 65% 13% 5% 9%
Virginia (164,363) (193,319) 36 54 100 106 72% 34% 5% 1%
Washington (163,726) (189,708) 29 52 92 99 71% 34% 6% 2%
West Virginia (25,853) (22,400) 58 75 106 109 64% 17% 4% 1%
Wisconsin (138,884) (73,487) 28 78 101 102 71% 15% 3% 0%
Wyoming (10,781) (3,672) 34 87 111 111 71% 13% 4% 0%
USA Totals (7,259,940) (7,776,700) 35 56 93 101 71% 32% 8% 2%
Source: NLIHC Tabulations of 2016 ACS PUMS data
APPENDIX B: METROPOLITAN COMPARISONS
Metropolitan Areas in RED have less than the national level of affordable and available units per 100 households at or below
the extremely low income threshold
VISIT
HTTP://NLIHC.ORG/GAP